I have been debating religion online for the past 15 years. There is not one religion, that when it cannot flat out debunk science, that has not ended up trying to co opt science to point to their respective club. Christians and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and even Buddhists pull this shit.

Science is completely religion independent. Scientific method is a process, a tool, not a religion. It does not prop up the Bible or Jewish OT or the Quran nor Buddha nor the Hindu Bhagavad Gita or Vedas. I find this OP pointless.

We know in very real scientific terms the age of our species and the age of our planet and sun and universe. Trying to retrofit science to match up old myths and old religions is bullshit. Humans make up all gods and all religions.

(09-08-2016 02:21 PM)cactus Wrote: Cut to the chase. Tell us how this relates to the Babble.

It doesn't. It's like trying to explain scientific flight with Harry Potter flying around on a broom. It is complete nonsense. But would be the case for any religion trying to claim ownership of neutral scientific method. All religions pull the same tactic. When they cant debunk science all of them try to use it to point to their clubs and writings.

(09-08-2016 11:39 AM)theBorg Wrote: All comes down to single question: do I wanna know something? If one messes up with definitions or notions, he just causes the confusion. Let us not to shame to be faithful scientists: the faith is the faithfulness to the knowledge.

The painful blow to Realism is the wave-particle dualism. The theory of David Bohm does separate the particle and wave, introducing the outside force (pilot wave), which acts on particle.

Suppose electron is free, i.e. the measuring apparatus of humans (e.g., a camera) has no direct influence on electron. This is the case for electrons inside the Sun.

Theorem:
The unproven conjecture "there is no electron prior to the measurement" is wrong.

Proof:
The uncertainty principle of Heisenberg admits the two ways of thinking:
A) electron has exact position, but there is no information on momentum, which the N. Bohr theory failed to provide.
B) electron has exact momentum, with no information on position.

Combining these two A+B, I see: electron has exact position and momentum in any time prior to the measurement. Therefore, the theorem is proved.

Consequence:
David Bohm's theory is True.

We are paying $2500 an ounce for all the electrons you can delver.

The following 2 users Like Born Again Pagan's post:2 users Like Born Again Pagan's postFireball (09-08-2016), DLJ (09-08-2016)

Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.

(09-08-2016 11:39 AM)theBorg Wrote: All comes down to single question: do I wanna know something? If one messes up with definitions or notions, he just causes the confusion. Let us not to shame to be faithful scientists: the faith is the faithfulness to the knowledge.

The painful blow to Realism is the wave-particle dualism. The theory of David Bohm does separate the particle and wave, introducing the outside force (pilot wave), which acts on particle.

Suppose electron is free, i.e. the measuring apparatus of humans (e.g., a camera) has no direct influence on electron. This is the case for electrons inside the Sun.

Theorem:
The unproven conjecture "there is no electron prior to the measurement" is wrong.

Proof:
The uncertainty principle of Heisenberg admits the two ways of thinking:
A) electron has exact position, but there is no information on momentum, which the N. Bohr theory failed to provide.
B) electron has exact momentum, with no information on position.

Combining these two A+B, I see: electron has exact position and momentum in any time prior to the measurement. Therefore, the theorem is proved.

Consequence:
David Bohm's theory is True.

Quantum stuff = gawd.

None of this gets you to a specific god and it sure doesn't get you to the biblical god, you see the biblical god did certain things that are demonstrably false:

1. Talking serpents
2. Magic fruits that impart knowledge
3. An impossible order of creation (light created after water)
4. Supernaturally created language

And so on.....

I don't care about your kabuki quantum dance, you can't get past the bible's sophistry, it is a book of ignorance written by ignorant men, period.

It has nothing useful to say about science.
It has nothing useful to say about morality.
It has nothing useful to say about it's fictional character of god.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition

(09-08-2016 11:39 AM)theBorg Wrote: If one messes up with definitions or notions, he just causes the confusion. Let us not to shame to be faithful scientists: the faith is the faithfulness to the knowledge.

Don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.